index_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the types of information returned (source, cache status, file/chunk counts, languages, available tools) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or behavior for missing indices, which would enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function; the second lists what can be discovered and when to use it. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the key outputs (source, cache, file count, chunk count, languages, tools) without an output schema. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., no index, errors), but for an inspection tool, the provided information is sufficient for typical use. Slightly more detail on error behavior would raise this to 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, referencing the source parameter implicitly but not elaborating on format or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'inspect' with the resource 'active index', specifying the scope (local path or Git repository). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_index, refresh_index, search, and get_chunk, which are mutation or search tools, making the inspection purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Use this to discover ... before searching.', providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context implies it is for pre-search inspection, and sibling tool names (e.g., search, get_chunk) further clarify the use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.